Farrakhan-Muhammad v. Oliver
677 F. App'x 478
10th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Q. Ili-Yaas Farrakhan-Muhammad, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, was found guilty by a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) of assaulting another inmate by throwing an unknown clear liquid.
- DHO sanctions: 27 days’ loss of good conduct time, 30 days disciplinary segregation, 60 days loss of commissary/telephone privileges.
- Petitioner filed a § 2241 habeas petition alleging due process violations: inadequate/untimely notice, untimely UDC hearing, ineffective staff assistance, DHO bias, and insufficient evidence.
- District court denied relief; petitioner appealed and sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo legal conclusions and affirmed, holding petitioner received the process required by Wolff/Hill and that some evidence supported the DHO’s finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice timeliness | Notice/incident report was inadequate and late | Minor deviations from BOP timing rules do not violate due process | Affirmed: timing deviations did not violate Constitution |
| UDC hearing delay | UDC hearing was untimely | UDC is not constitutionally required; any delay in a nonrequired hearing is not a due process violation | Affirmed: no constitutional violation |
| Staff representation | Staff assistance was ineffective | Inmates have no right to retained/appointed counsel; assistance need not meet counsel standards | Affirmed: assistance not shown ineffective |
| DHO impartiality & sufficiency of evidence | DHO biased; evidence was insufficient | Decisionmaker presumed impartial absent substantial proof; staff report and video constitute some evidence | Affirmed: no bias shown; some evidence supported guilty finding |
Key Cases Cited
- al-Marri v. Davis, 714 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for § 2241 habeas denial)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (procedural due process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard for disciplinary findings affecting good time)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (prison regulations do not by themselves create liberty interests enforceable under due process)
- Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) (no right to retained or appointed counsel in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504 (10th Cir. 1998) (presumption of tribunal honesty and integrity; bias requires substantial countervailing reason)
- Gwinn v. Awmiller, 354 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2004) (additional due process requirements: some evidence and impartial decisionmaker)